Brian

And to back up what Kipper says, this is the problem.

There are three serious flaws in this rationale:

1. Flaw 1 is the notion that there is some overriding good reason which requires both that these decisions be carried out in secret, and by an empowered group without any division of power. There is no reason for these conversations to happen in secret.

2. Flaw 2 is that discussing the reasons, rationales, or motives for their actions is forbidden. Not only do they have unlimited power, but their power and it's uses cannot be discussed.

3. Flaw 3, and the most serious one of all, is that no body with accountability to the membership has any insight, visibility, or influence on the decisions of this secret body.

Democracy may be messy, but it is effective, and the division of power is what makes it work.

If FT wishes to operate non-democratically, which is within it's purview, it should drop the sham of having a member voice into it's decisions, and just operate as an autocracy, which is effectively what it is anyways.

nsx

Nothing at all wrong with that. That's the kind of constructive input I was looking for.

This is not some kind of conspiracy against members. Everyone, most especially Carol, wants FT to be the best it can be. She chose to decide on TS/S privately. If you prefer a more public decision process, you should design a process that satisfies her priorities as well as yours. Otherwise it's just a question of whose priorities are more important. The less constructive and helpful your commentary is, the lower your priority falls. At least that's how I would react in Carol's position. I'll bet you would too.

Anyone who comes up with a comprehensive plan on any subject deserves to have that plan fully considered. Why? Because developing a plan that accounts for all factors and priorities is hard work. It's much harder than pointing out the faults in the current processes.

Kagehitokiri

who polices the police of the police?

kokonutz

The posters. By voting every November. That's where the accountability to the posters comes in.

Not in koko-world. In koko-world these recommendations are made under the current process: with public threads and votes in this very forum.

This would allow for all posters to have a say into the recommendations that the TB makes to the CD regarding the day-to-day management of FT.

This would increase collaboration, accountability and ultimately responsiveness to the posters. It would also increase the legitimacy and acceptance of day-to-day management and the decisions required thereby.

Mary2e

I'm still shaking my head in disbelief that while the talk board decides whether or not so create a new forum (by asking for evidence of need) that after it's created, they have no say in what is contained in that forum, as it has then become a moderation issue.

What would happen in Koko-world?

tcook052

An "internally managed" police force that isn't accountable to anyone but the police advisory board? Seems to me that concept solves as many problems as it attempts to solve as IMHO that's not much more transparent than the current system.

BTW I strongly dislike using the term "police" in the first place.

nsx

In koko-world the relatively few people who are engaged enough to vote will in effect run FT? No other Internet board does anything remotely similar to that. No other business of any kind is managed by its customers. The customers just don't have the necessary knowledge. They don't need to know how it works and they don't want to know how it works. They just want to use the product.

Currently FT is run primarily by moderators who are committed enough to volunteer large amounts of their time for free. They have earned whatever influence they have through hard work. They have extensive knowledge of individual forums and the personalities of members who post there.

You want to replace this by a new system that operates on less information? I've read about the Wisdom of Crowds, but this is straining my credulity.

koko, if you can assemble a specific proposal for how this would actually work and why the result would be superior to the current FT, I'll read it eagerly. I'll impose one condition: that the proposal not assume that Internet Brands will agree to pay all moderators normal wages for their work. That might be interesting to imagine, but I'm sure it's financially impossible.

nsx

Incidentally, if anyone cares, I am NOT running for TB President and I have not yet decided for whom I will vote.

N965VJ

I'm a frequent poster there, have never been suspended (in fact I've been quoted several times in the TalkMail Newsletter) and I would have loved to give some constructive input about proposed changes.

Kagehitokiri

this is the problem with focusing on creating moderators of moderators, rather than policy.
im going to have to assume you have misinterpreted my general statement, and are not suggesting that all TB can do is create comparatively small forums once a certain threshold is met.

you reference a negative reaction, when there are two other possible reactions - positive and neutral.

essxjay

Members had told us over and over for years -- directly via PMs and indirectly via RBPs -- what the problems were. In the year prior to the split the number of RBPs for TOS infractions averaged ~dozen per day and (too) often were several multiples of that. (Contrary to what some have stated workload was indeed a factor in our decision given the time required to properly document our actions.) Moderate voices felt drowned out/put off/run off by the more activistic personalities, and the activistic members felt censored by us. It got to the point last spring that something had to be done to balance conflicting concerns and interests lest the entire forum burn brighter than any OMNI subdivision. Due to member privacy constraints it was up to mods and the CD to figure out a solution. Not perfect, ideal or otherwise lacking? Under the circumstances we did the best we could.

Kagehitokiri

* is it against TOS to discuss what policies the moderators of moderators would follow?
* what about talking about organizational issues, without getting into what moderators are currently doing or not doing?

* has there been discussion on whether FT TOS could/should be made more explicit?

essxjay

All good questions, Kagehitokiri. ^

lin821

That is the biggest issue I see in koko's world of "I am running for Boss of MODs."

Jenbel

It's an interesting characterisation that, calling the mods 'police'. Who likes police? Frames the mods in a negative light, but does so subtley. It also paints mods as authoritarian figures, who must be controlled by a more benevolent hand.

However, that's a characterisation which doesn't really apply to FT. Mods are not the police force (we'd have a lot more power if we were! ). We are here to help, and while some members might see us as the problem, I'd say the success of the mods is that some members do see us as the problem. I hate to say it, but some members get frustrated when they are stopped from saying or doing what they want, when they want, or where they want. The fact that members like that find mods are a problem is not a clear indication of where the problems lie.... We would not be helping if we allowed FT to become a free for all

(Fortunately, the vast majority of FT members are not like that. And the vast majority of FT members are not complaining about the mods. )

And you can do that. I hope you will. I think that would be an improvement. But I'm struggling to see why you need to take over the mods to do so. It seems like you are using the latter to justfy the former, when that is not really needed. If you think you can produce ideas which will improve FT, go ahead and do them. That's why you were voted onto TB. It's your job now. And you're creative enough to be able to do it within the existing rules too.

Sounds great, but all I've read so far is that TB wants to check the mods' work. Still haven't seen why that is necessary actually. Do you feel that Carol's efforts are insufficient?

So, what are you proposing for the mods checking TB's work? What's the quid pro quo you are offering - or is that a grandiose sounding phrase which sounds great, sounds very fluffy and non offensive, but actually doesn't really mean what it says?

So what deficiencies do you feel are in the current structure? How would you improve it? If you are saying that TSS is a perfect example of your failure to be efficient and not promote best practice, where do you find the current set up to be not working?

Look around you koko - posters and mods do work together and are responsible to each other. The problem you have is that TB is outside of that relationship and you now want to try and shoehorn it in. Most/many/all of us mods enjoy an extremely good relationship with the forum members - we have to, it's part of our job.

With respect, if I have a problem on VS, why should I not listen to my members who actually spend time in the forum, understand the forum and what they want from it, rather than a bunch of Americans who don't, no matter how many hundred people voted for you? What benefit is there to adding an extra layer of bureaucracy to that conversation?

(And that is not meant to be a slur on TB - I think TB could hold an important function on FT. But an individual forum's concerns are very personal to that forum, and require quite a lot of knowledge about that forum and its culture - which TB members may not necessarily have, particularly for the smaller, calmer parts of FT. And I think the desire from some for TB to insert itself into the conversation between the mods and their members because they feel they should control that conversation and make sure the mods are doing what TB wants (which isn't necessarily what the members want... ) is actually a backward step for FT. But hey, if it reduces the influence that the mods have, some will think it's a great idea, even if it is worse for FT).